What would an investigative reporter turned director
of a private intelligence operation, who is increasingly obsessed with proving
that mainstream Muslim American organizations are radical, do when he fails to
find evidence to support his obsession? Human decency and Ethical conduct
dictate that he give up his obsession and admit that he was wrong. Steve
Emerson, the director of the shadowy Investigative Project, thinks otherwise.
Rather than doing the right thing and give up his bigoted endeavor, he decides
to use fantasy to forge evidence and prolong his compulsive obsession.

Emerson belongs to a network of anti-Muslim pundits who, driven by bigotry and
exclusivist ideology, are bent on marginalizing Muslim Americans, and using
unscrupulous tactics to distort the image of Muslims and instill fear of Islam
and Muslims in the American public. Their strategy is to repeat their unfounded
accusations against mainstream Muslim organizations so as to create a public
record and then use it to incite federal officials and agencies against Muslim
Americans. The idea is that if they can repeat a lie long enough, and use
different media outlets to propagate their accusations, the lie in time becomes
"believable" and takes the semblance of "truth." Obviously, they have not heeded
Abraham Lincoln's wise advice: "You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people
all of the time."

In a recent article published in the National Review Online (June 28, 2007)
under the title "Radical Outreach: Bush coddles American apologists for radical
Islam," Emerson lashes out against President Bush for appointing a special envoy
to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Emerson made it clear that
he resents Bush's initiative, which is aimed at mending fences with the Muslim
world, and fauls OIC for being critical of Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians under military occupation.

Emerson was particularly upset that President Bush distinguished between Muslims
in general and fringe extremist groups whose attacks on innocent civilians have
been condemned by Muslim communities throughout the world, and by mainstream
Muslim organizations. By making a distinction between ordinary Muslims and
extremists, Emerson proclaims, Bush advances the "very talking point [that] is
the refuge of America's supposedly [sic] mainstream Muslim organizations like
the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs
Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA)."

To undermine the distinction between mainstream and Muslim extremists, he goes
to the website of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and picks up a
news release that was published in 2004. The news release reported then the
decision of the US Navy Chief of Chaplains to remove an article by Salman
Rushdie that was intended to instigate Muslims against the West and westerners
against Islam. I wrote to Rear Admiral Louis V. Iasiello, then the Navy Chief of
Chaplains, asking him to reconsider the decision to publish such a divisive
article of the website of the Navy Corps. Chaplain Iaseillo realized that it was
a mistake to republish the article on the Navy website and order its removal.

Emerson takes the news release and turns its content upside down, and without
any ifs, maybes, or buts he attributes to me the divisive argument advanced by
Rushdie. Emerson writes: "In 2004, Louay Safi, a top ISNA official, went
further, writing that the 'assertion by 'world leaders' that the war on
terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and
disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the
coalition against terrorism.'"

Emerson ignores the context of the above statement and omits a key phrase that
shows clearly that the quoted argument was that of Rushdie and not my own as he
claims. Here is the paragraph which Emerson misquotes in its totality:

"Salman Rushdie's article 'Yes, This is About Islam,' originally published in
New York Times, argues that the assertion by 'world leaders' that the war on
terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and
disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the
coalition against terrorism."

Emerson representation of my position is not simply an error of omission, but a
gross distortion of my words and a malicious attempt to put a spin on my
statement so as to support his thesis of assigning anti-American views to Muslim
American leaders, scholars, and organizations. My correct position is in
complete opposition to what Emerson presented and is not easy to miss as it is
spelled out in the subsequent paragraph. Here is my response to Rushdie's
argument:

"In his letter, Dr. Safi pointed out that the article not only insult the
overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide, particularly American soldiers of
the Islamic faith, who every day put their lives on the line . . . but its
cynicism cannot be easily missed as it accuses the commander in chief, and
virtually all senior members of the government, of duplicity."

Mr. Emerson has in the past used innuendo and half-truths to malign mainstream
Muslim individuals and organizations, but he has recently reached a new low as
he is now willing to use fraud and fabrication to undermine Muslim Americans.
His unscrupulous attacks and insinuations against Muslims in general and Muslim
Americans in particular must be condemned by every American of conscience, as
his hatful and divisive message would, if left unchecked, confuse the public and
undermine the efforts to isolate extremism and defeat terrorism.

Dr. Louay M. Safi writes and lectures on issues
relating to Islam, American Muslims, democracy, human rights, leadership, and
world peace. He is the author of eight books and numerous papers, including
Tensions and Transitions in the Muslim word, published by University Press of
America, 2003. His commentaries are available on his blog:
aninsight.org